On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:21:22PM -0500, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 12:12 -0800, Tim Fenn wrote: > > > It's because this is a safer behaviour than guessing around various > > > errors. You think it's wonderful, but it's far more error-prone than not > > > doing anything "automagically" until the problem is actually fixed. > > > Working around brokenness is a very slippery path to far graver and more > > > obscure brokenness down the line. > > > > > > > Perhaps it was a bad example (I don't think smart will break deps to > > perform an upgrade, but I could be wrong). Some interesting cases > > (where indeed both yum and apt fail): > > > > http://zorked.net/smart/doc/README.html#study-cases > > Yeah, and this is still unsafe, because downgrading is inherently, > implicitly unsafe. > > 1. You can downgrade into a vulnerability > 2. Downgrading often breaks, since newer version can do things in %post > that make downgrading to a workable state impossible > Can I not reverse this argument to state: Yeah, and this is still unsafe, because upgrading is inherently, implicitly unsafe. 1. you can upgrade into a vulnerability 2. upgrading often breaks, since newer versions can do things in %pre that make upgrading to a workable state impossible. And have it be equally valid? ;) Regards, -Tim -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
